Professional Documents
Culture Documents
the world come together, my words are meant to be the echo of the moral conscie
nce of humanity "in the pure sense," if you will grant me that expression. My wo
rds bear with them no special interests or concerns of a nature which could mar
their witness value and make them less credible.
A conscience illumined and guided by Christian faith, without doubt, but w
hich is by that fact nonetheless profoundly human. It is therefore a conscience
which is shared by all men and women of sincerity and good will.
My voice is the echo of the concerns and aspirations, the hopes and the fe
ars of millions of men and women who, from every walk of life, are looking towar
d this Assembly asking, as they hope, if there will come forth some reassuring l
ight or if there will be a new and more worrisome disappointment. Without claimi
ng a mandate from all these people, I believe I can make myself the faithful int
erpreter to you of the feelings which are theirs.
I neither wish nor am I able to enter into the technical and political asp
ects of the problem of disarmament as they stand before you today. However, I wo
uld like to call your attention to some ethical principles which are at the hear
t of every discussion and every decision that might be looked for in this field.
2. My point of departure is rooted in a statement unanimously agreed upon
not only by your citizens but also by the governments that you lead or you repre
sent: the world wants peace; the world needs peace.
In our modern world to refuse peace means not only to provoke the sufferin
gs and the loss that-today more than ever-war, even a limited one, implies: it c
ould also involve the total destruction of entire regions, not to mention the th
reat of possible or probable catastrophes in ever vaster and possibly even unive
rsal proportions.
Those who are responsible for the life of peoples seem above all to be eng
aged in a frantic search for political means and technical solutions which would
allow the results of eventual conflicts "to be contained." While having to reco
gnize the limits of their efforts in this direction, they persist in believing t
hat in the long run war is inevitable. Above all this is found in the specter of
a possible military confrontation between the two major camps which divide the
world today and continues to haunt the future of humanity.
Certainly no power, and no statesman, would be of a mind to admit to plann
ing war or to wanting to take such an initiative. Mutual distrust, however, make
s us believe or fear that because others might nourish designs or desires of thi
s type, each, especially among the great powers, seems to envisage no other poss
ible solution than through necessity to prepare sufficiently strong defense to b
e able to respond to an eventual attack.
3. Many even think that such preparations constitute the way-even the only
way-to safeguard peace in some fashion or at least to impede to the utmost in a
n efficacious way the outbreak of wars, especially major conflicts which might l
ead to the ultimate holocaust of humanity and the destruction of the civilizatio
n that man has constructed so laboriously over the centuries.
In this approach one can see the "philosophy of peace" which was proclaime
d in the ancient Roman principle: Si vis pacem, para bellum. Put in modern terms
, this "philosophy" has the label of "deterrence," and one can find it in variou
s guises of the search for a "balance of forces" which sometimes has been called
, and not without reason, the "balance of terror."
As my Predecessor Paul VI put it: "The logic underlying the request for th
e balances of power impels each of the adversaries to seek to ensure a certain m
argin of superiority, for fear of being left at a disadvantage" (Message to the
United Nations General Assembly, May 24, 1978: The Teachings of Pope Paul VI, vo
l. 11, 1978, p. 202).
Thus in practice the temptation is easy-and the danger always present-to s
ee the search for balance turned into a search for superiority of a type that se
ts off the arms race in an even more dangerous way.
In reality this is the tendency which seems to continue to be prevalent to
day perhaps in an even more accentuated fashion than in the past. You have taken
as your specific purpose in this Assembly to search how it could be possible to
reverse this trend.
of every people in mutual respect and peace; thus the need for these grand arse
nals of fear and the threat of death would become superfluous.
The teaching of the Catholic Church in this area has been clear and consis
tent. It has deplored the arms race, called nonetheless for mutual progressive a
nd verifiable reduction of armaments as well as greater safeguards against possi
ble misuse of these weapons. It has done so while urging that the independence,
freedom and legitimate security of each and every nation be respected.
I wish to reassure you that the constant concern and consistent efforts of
the Catholic Church will not cease until there is a general verifiable disarmam
ent, until the hearts of all are won over to those ethical choices which will gu
arantee a lasting peace.
6. In turning to the current debate that concerns you, and to the subject
at hand, we must recognize that no element in international affairs stands alone
and isolated from the many-faceted interests of nations. However, it is one thi
ng to recognize the interdependence of questions; it is another to exploit them
in order to gain advantage in another. Armaments, nuclear weapons and disarmamen
t are too important in themselves and for the world ever to be made part of a st
rategy which would exploit their intrinsic importance in favor of politics or ot
her interests.
7. Therefore, it is important and right that every serious proposal that w
ould contribute to real disarmament and that would create a better climate be gi
ven the prudent and objective consideration it deserves. Even small steps can ha
ve a value which would go beyond their material or technical aspects. Whatever t
he area under consideration, we need today freshness of perspective and a capaci
ty to listen respectfully and carefully to the honest suggestions of every respo
nsible party in this matter.
In this context there is what I would call the phenomenon of rhetoric. In
an area already tense and fraught with unavoidable dangers, there is no place fo
r exaggerated speech or threatening stances. Indulgence in rhetoric, in inflamed
and impassioned vocabulary, in veiled threat and scare tactics can only exacerb
ate a problem that needs sober and diligent examination.
On the other hand, governments and their leaders cannot carry on the affai
rs of state independent of the wishes of their peoples. The history of civilizat
ion gives us stark examples of what happens when that is tried. Currently the fe
ar and preoccupation of so many groups in various parts of the world reveal that
people are more and more frightened about what would happen if irresponsible pa
rties unleash some nuclear war.
In fact, just about everywhere peace movements have been developing. In se
veral countries, these movements, which have become very popular, are being supp
orted by an increasing sector of the citizenry from various social levels, diffe
rent age groups and backgrounds, but especially by youth. The ideological bases
of these movements are multiple. Their projects, proposals and policies vary gre
atly and can often lend themselves to political exploitation. However, all these
differences of form and shape manifest a profound and sincere desire for peace
.
May I also join myself to the spirit of your draft appeal to public opinio
n for the birth of a truly universal consciousness of the terrible risks of war.
May that consciousness in its turn lead to a general spirit of peace.
8. In current conditions "deterrence" based on balance, certainly not as a
n end in itself but as a step on the way toward a progressive disarmament, may s
till be judged morally acceptable. Nonetheless in order to ensure peace, it is i
ndispensable not to be satisfied with this minimum which is always susceptible t
o the real danger of explosion.
What then can be done? In the absence of a supranational authority of the
type Pope John XXIII sought in his Encyclical Pacem in terris, one which one wou
ld have hoped to find in the United Nations Organization, the only realistic res
ponse to the threat of war still is negotiation. Here I would like to remind you
of an expression of Saint Augustine which I have already cited in another conte
xt: "Destroy war by the words of negotiations, but do not destroy men by the swo
rd." Today once again, before you all, I reaffirm my confidence in the power of
dy said several times, is the result of respect for ethical principles. True dis
armament, that which will actually guarantee peace among peoples, will come abou
t only with the resolution of this ethical crisis. To the extent that the effort
s at arms reduction and then of total disarmament are not matched by parallel et
hical renewal, they are doomed in advance to failure.
The attempt must be made to put our world aright and to eliminate the spir
itual confusion born from a narrow-minded search for interest or privilege or by
the defense of ideological claims: this is a task of first priority if we wish
to measure any progress in the struggle for disarmament. Otherwise we are conde
mned to remain at face-saving activities.
For the root cause of our insecurity can be found in this profound crisis
of humanity. By means of creating consciences sensitive to the absurdity of war,
we advance the value of creating the material and spiritual conditions which wi
ll lessen the glaring inequalities and which will restore to everyone that minim
um of space that is needed for the freedom of the spirit.
The great disparity between the rich and the poor living together on this
one planet is no longer supportable in a world of rapid universal communications
, without giving birth to a justified resentment that can turn to violence. More
over the spirit has basic and inalienable rights. For it is with justice that th
ese rights are demanded in countries where the space is denied them to live in t
ranquillity according to their own convictions. I invite all those struggling fo
r peace to commit themselves to the effort to eliminate the true causes of the i
nsecurity of man of which the terrible arms race is only one effect.
13. To reverse the current trend in the arms race involves, therefore, a p
arallel struggle on two fronts: on the one side, an immediate and urgent struggl
e by governments to reduce progressively and equally their armaments; on the oth
er hand, a more patient but nonetheless necessary struggle at the level of the c
onsciences of peoples to take their responsibility in regard to the ethical caus
e of the insecurity that breeds violence by coming to grips with the material an
d spiritual inequalities of our world.
With no prejudice of any kind, let us unite all our intellectual and spiri
tual forces, those of statesmen, of citizens, of religious leaders, to put an en
d to violence and hatred and to seek out the paths of peace.
Peace is the supreme goal of the activity of the United Nations. It must b
ecome the goal of all men and women of good will. Unhappily still in our days, s
ad realities cast their shadows across the international horizon, causing the su
ffering of destruction, such that they could cause humanity to lose the hope of
being able to master its own future in harmony and in the collaboration of peopl
es.
Despite the suffering that invades my soul, I feel empowered, even obliged
, solemnly to reaffirm before all the world what my Predecessors and I myself ha
ve repeated so often in the name of conscience, in the name of morality, in the
name of humanity and in the name of God:
Peace is not a utopia, nor an inaccessible ideal, nor an unrealizable drea
m.
War is not an inevitable calamity.
Peace is possible.
And because it is possible, peace is our duty: our grave duty, our supreme
responsibility.
Certainly peace is difficult; certainly it demands much good will, wisdom,
and tenacity. But man can and he must make the force of reason prevail over the
reasons of force.
That is why my last word is yet a word of encouragement and of exhortation
. And since peace, entrusted to the responsibility of men and women, remains eve
n then a gift of God, it must also express itself in prayer to Him who holds the
destinies of all peoples in His
hands.
May I thank you for the activity you undertake to make the cause of disarm
ament go forward: disarming the engines of death and disarming spirits. May God
bless your efforts and may this Assembly remain in history a sign of reassurance
and hope.
MEN OF SCIENCE COMMIT ALL YOUR MORAL AUTHORITY TO SAVE MANKIND FROM NUCLEAR DEST
RUCTION
Excerpt from talk given to representatives of UNESCO
June 2, 1980
On June 2, 1980, John Paul II met the representatives of UNESCO and delive
red an address from which the following excerpt was taken.
Mr. President of the General Conference,
Mr. President of the Executive Council,
Mr. Director General,
Ladies and gentlemen,
...We realize it, ladies and gentlemen, the future of man and of the world
is threatened, radically threatened, in spite of the intentions, certainly nobl
e ones, of men of learning, men of science. It is threatened because the marvelo
us results of their researches and their discoveries, especially in the field of
the sciences of nature, have been and continue to be exploited-to the detriment
of the ethical imperative-for purposes that have nothing to do with the require
ments of science, and even for purposes of destruction and death, and that to a
degree never known hitherto, causing really unimaginable damage. Whereas science
is called to be in the service of man's life, it is too often a fact that is su
bjected to purposes that destroy the real dignity of man and of human life. That
is the case when scientific research itself is directed towards these purposes
or when its results are applied to purposes contrary to the good of mankind. Tha
t happens in the field of genetic manipulations and biological experimentations
as well as in that of chemical, bacteriological or nuclear armaments.
Two considerations lead me to submit particularly to your reflection the n
uclear threat which is weighing upon the world today and which, if it is not sta
ved off, could lead to the destruction of the fruits of culture-the products of
civilization elaborated throughout the centuries by successive generations of me
n who believed in the primacy of the spirit and who did not spare either their e
fforts or their fatigue. The first consideration is the following. Geopolitical
reasons, economic problems of world dimension, terrible incomprehension, wounded
national pride, the materialism of our age and the decadence of moral values ha
ve led our world to a situation of instability, to a frail balance which runs th
e risk of being destroyed any moment as a result of errors of judgment, informat
ion or interpretation.
Another consideration is added to this disquieting perspective. Can we be
sure, nowadays, that the upsetting of the balance would not lead to war, and to
a war that would not hesitate to have recourse to nuclear arms? Up to now it has
been said that nuclear arms have constituted a force of dissuasion which has pr
evented a major war from breaking out, and it is probably true. But we may wonde
r at the same time if it will always be so. Nuclear arms, of whatever order of m
agnitude or of whatever type they may be, are being perfected more and more ever
y year, and they are being added to the arsenal of a growing number of countries
. How can we be sure that the use of nuclear arms, even for purposes of national
defense or in limited conflicts, will not lead to an inevitable escalation, lea
ding to a destruction that mankind can never envisage or accept? But it is not y
ou, men of science and culture, that I must ask not to close your eyes to what a
nuclear war can represent for the whole of humanity (cf. Homily for the World D
ay of Peace, January 1, 1980).
Ladies and gentlemen, the world will not be able to continue for long alon
g this way. A conviction, which is at the same time a moral imperative, forces i
tself upon anyone who has become aware of the situation at stake, and who is als
o inspired by the elementary sense of responsibilities that are incumbent on eve